Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Origin Housing Limited (202327448)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327448

Origin Housing Limited

10 June 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the communal front door.
    2. Tiling works to the front entrance of the building.
    3. The associated complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy of the property which began on 24 June 2002. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the fourth floor of a terraced building.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 4 September 2023. He said the communal entrance door was not working correctly. He was concerned as he considered it posed a security risk. He also reported that the lip of the front entrance area was missing tiles, and this posed a tripping hazard. The resident re-sent his complaint on 18 September 2023, because he had not received an acknowledgement from the landlord.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 October 2023. It:
    1. acknowledged that there had been an error in logging the resident’s complaint and offered £50 compensation for this.
    2. attended the building to carry out an urgent repair for the main entrance door. It said it was necessary for the contractor to return, and the repair was completed on 19 September 2024. It stated it would look into the plans for improvement works to the door and intercom and update the resident directly. It offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the communal door.
    3. stated there had been a postcode mapping issue which led the contractor to the wrong building. It offered £50 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused by this.
  4. The resident asked that the complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 3 October 2023. He said the stage 1 response incorrectly stated the door had been repaired. He also felt the standard of the work was poor for both the door repair and the tiling. He stated the compensation did not “alleviate the urgent need” for the repair and it was not proportionate to his safety concerns. He asked the landlord to prioritise completion of the repair and asked for improvements in the landlord’s communication with him.   
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 November 2023. It advised that it had ordered a new front door, however it would not be installed until January 2024 due to manufacturing delays. It said the contractor had accepted the standard of work was not acceptable and it had since completed the remedial work. It also said it planned to carry out an inspection of the tiling work. It increased the overall compensation amount from £150 to £200, to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident for having to report the repairs and raise the complaint on behalf of his neighbours.
  6. The resident referred the complaint to us. He said that while the repairs had been completed, he was unhappy with the length of time it took the landlord to complete them. He felt there was a lack of communication from the landlord and the handling of his complaint was poor. The complaint became one we could investigate on 17 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the communal front door.

  1. The landlord has informed us that it took over ownership of the property from a different landlord. It said it was not provided with the tenancy agreement nor were the accompanying terms and conditions provided by the previous landlord. Therefore, it has not been possible to establish what the terms of the tenancy are. Nevertheless, section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is implied into the resident’s tenancy agreement. This states that landlords are required to keep in repair and proper working order the structure and exterior of the dwelling house, this extends to common parts of a building such as entryways.

 

  1. The landlord’s website confirms that it employs caretakers, cleaners and contractors to keep communal areas clean, neat and tidy. It also states that inspections of the communal areas are carried out quarterly.
  2. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it repaired the door on 22 August 2023. However, there is no evidence of this on either its repairs history or the repairs log. It is therefore unclear what evidence the landlord relied on when stating as such. Based on the evidence we have seen, the issue with the communal entry door appears to have been reported by the resident previously and potentially predates when the landlord took over the property. The absence of this information on the logs provided is not appropriate and indicates an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
  3. The landlord stated a contractor attended the property on 23 August 2023 to carry out a repair. The landlord should attend to emergency repairs within 2 hours if the property is not secure as stated in its policy. Although the landlord claimed the repair was treated as urgent, this was not reflected in the repair log. Since the issue involved a communal front door and not the resident’s individual door, the response time was reasonable. However, the lack of evidence showing what action was taken, was not appropriate.
  4. The repairs log for 29 August 2023 for job 632793 stated that the front door needed an ease and adjustment. The accompanying note stated that the job was cancelled by the contractor on 29 August 2023. There is no further information about why this happened. As a result, the audit trail relating to the repair is incomplete and this is another failing in the landlord’s record keeping. There is also no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated during this period. This ultimately led to the resident making a complaint on 4 September 2023. He stated that the communal entry door was logged as job 632352. This does not correspond to any entries within the repairs logs and therefore the landlord’s record keeping or systems of recording repairs is again called into question.
  5. The landlord in its stage 1 response said that the contractor was asked to attend to broken hinges. It said a temporary repair was carried out the next day and it returned on 19 September 2023 to adjust the magnetic plates and complete the repair. However, there is no corresponding entry or evidence of this on the repairs log or repair history report. The Ombudsman’s 2023 “Knowledge and Information Management” Spotlight report highlights issues that can arise from record keeping failures such as this. It said, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action”.
  6. There are a number of references in the resident’s communication with the landlord which indicate the communal entry door was malfunctioning for approximately 6 months before the complaint was made. The resident in his complaint stated he had made numerous calls about this issue. However, no call logs have been provided. Therefore, it has not been possible to assess whether the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns appropriately. The resident on numerous occasions also expressed his concern about the safety of the building because the malfunctioning entry door posed a security risk. He stated it was further exacerbated by the increased incidents of antisocial behaviour and noted that previously someone had defecated in the communal area.
  7. The inadequate record of repairs relating to the communal door likely caused avoidable delays in the landlord resolving the repair. Additionally, because the landlord’s records were not accurate, it led to it incorrectly stating in the stage 1 response that the repair was completed on 19 September 2023. Our 2025 “Repairs and Maintenance – Repairing Trust” Spotlight report highlights that incorrect information or recording errors can disrupt repairs. This clearly impacted the landlord’s ability to complete the repair in a timely manner because its own records were not clear or accurate. As a result, there is a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s record keeping.
  8. The landlord said in its stage 2 response it had ordered a new door, but due to manufacturing delays, it would not be able to install it until around the end of January 2024. The resident raised further repairs with the communal entry door after the stage 2 response on 8 November, 18 December and 20 December 2023. Given the previous failed attempts to repair the door, the landlord acted reasonably by ordering a new door. It is unfortunate that the manufacturing delays were long, however it is recognised that this was not something that the landlord could control.
  9. No evidence has been provided to show when the landlord decided to replace the door or when it was ordered. The repair log confirmed the door repair was completed on 26 February 2024. While it was appropriate that the landlord ordered a new door, the lack of evidence surrounding the details of the repair means it has not been possible to assess whether the landlord responded appropriately, or whether any of the delay could reasonably have been mitigated.
  10. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered £50 compensation to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by the communal entry door repair. Given the identified failings, and the poor record keeping this amount was not proportionate. In the circumstances the landlord should pay an additional £150 compensation. This is to reflect the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the door repair, and its failure to keep him updated in relation to the repairs. This is an appropriate amount in line with our remedies guidance for failings which adversely impacted the resident. It takes into account the historic reports of problems with the door which date back many months before the complaint and factors in the landlord’s failure to adequately address the resident’s concerns over safety.

Tiling in the front entrance of the building.

  1. In his complaint, the resident referred to job number 630971 – which was relating to missing tiles on the front lip of the entrance to the communal area. He said it posed a tripping hazard and “compromised the safety” of anyone entering the building. While this does not appear on the repair history or the repair log, the landlord said in the stage 1 response that it was reported by the resident on 4 August 2023. Within the stage 1 response, the landlord also stated that contractors attended the property on 23 May 2023 to remove all the loose tiles and measured up the area to order replacements. While the landlord’s comments are acknowledged, there is no corresponding entry in the repair logs to reflect this. As such, there is an absence of contemporaneous evidence, and it has not been possible for us to assess whether the landlord’s response was adequate. The poor record keeping of this repair was a failure.
  2. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that further visits in June and July 2023 took place, but the replacement tiles were not ordered. It cited this was due to a “variety of reasons” however it provided no information as to what these reasons were. There is no reference to these visits on the repairs log or on the repairs history report. This poor record keeping likely affected the landlord’s ability to effectively complete the repair. There is also a lack of evidence that the resident was kept updated about the repair. This understandably left him feeling frustrated about the issue.
  3. In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that the repair was completed on 18 September. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines that routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. Taking the earlier date of 23 May 2023, as the first report of the issue, the repair was not completed in line with its policy. It is acknowledged that the landlord said some delays were caused by a postcode mapping problem which meant contractors were sent to the incorrect building which also had the same tiles. However, the landlord did not explain why the further delays happened nor is there evidence demonstrating that the resident was informed of the reasons. This was not appropriate.
  4. When the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 3 October 2022, he explained the standard of the re-tiling work was not good. In its stage 2 response dated 7 November 2023, the landlord agreed the quality of the work was unacceptable. It confirmed that the further work had been done, and it would arrange a post inspection to ensure it was completed to a satisfactory standard. The landlord’s response was reasonable once it had been notified of the issue, and it was appropriate to arrange an inspection after the previous attempt at the repair.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the tile repair was frustrated by its poor record keeping. It offered £50 compensation in it stage 1 response. This was to recognise the inconvenience caused by its failures. Given the identified failings, the landlord should pay an additional £50 compensation. This is to reflect the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident. It also acknowledges the landlord’s lack of communication caused avoidable distress to the resident. This is an appropriate amount in line with our remedies guidance for failings that adversely affected the resident.

Associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a 2-stage process for how it will respond to complaints. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. A stage 2 response will be provided in 20 working days. An extension of 10 working days can be given if the landlord contacts the resident, explaining the good reasons for it. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which was in place at the time.
  2. The resident submitted his complaint by email on 4 September 2023. This was not acknowledged by the landlord within the 5 day requirement. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 18 and 19 September 2023. This understandably caused the resident time and trouble as he had to chase for a response.
  3. The landlord called the resident on 27 September 2023 to apologise for the delay in responding. It also looked into the cause of the delay, and said it was due to an anomaly in its system for logging complaints. It was appropriate for the landlord to investigate the root cause for the delay. It clearly identified a flaw within its system and alerted the landlord to a gap in clarity over what had happened to the complaint from the date it was submitted to the date it was chased by the resident. It is noted the landlord said a new system was intended to be rolled out in the coming months. This shows the landlord had a plan in place to prevent the issue from happening again.
  4. The landlord offered the resident £50 to compensate for its delay in acknowledging and responding to his complaint. It took 17 days to acknowledge the complaint and 21 days in total to issue its stage 1 response. This was not in accordance with the Code or its own policy. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to recognise its failings had caused inconvenience.
  5. The landlord’s offer of £50 compensation was proportionate redress to the complaint handling failure caused by its delays. This is because it took into account the inconvenience caused to the resident, by having to chase it. In its stage 2 response, the landlord further increased its overall compensation amount by another £50. It did so as it recognised the time and trouble caused to the resident to manage the complaint on behalf of all the other residents. This is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance and what we would have ordered for similar failings.
  6. For the reasons stated above, the landlord’s offer of redress to the resident, is proportionate and in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal front door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of tiling works to the front entrance of the building.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of reasonable redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses it’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failings identified by this investigation, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on making apologies.
    2. Pay the resident a further £200 compensation, in addition to its final offer of £200. This is comprised of:
      1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repair to the communal front door.
      2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the tile repair.

It should pay this directly to the resident and not his rent account.

  1. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must review the findings in this case in relation to record keeping. The review must include:
    1. Identifying the minimum amount of information that ought to have been recorded in its repair and communication logs, which of these standards it failed to adhere to, and why. This should include communication with, and inspections carried out by contractors.
    2. An assessment of whether there is a wider issue in relation to record keeping i.e. poor systems, or if the failings were owing to human error.

The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman detailing its findings and any wider learning it has identified. To assist it in doing this, it may wish to consult recommendations 2, 3, 7 and 8, in our Spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’.